Title page:

Fostering an Entrepreneurial Team Based Learning Environment

Dr Tony Blackwood, Programme Director, Newcastle Business School

Corporate and Executive Development CentreNewcastle Business School, Northumbria University, City Campus East 1,

Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 8ST

0191 227 4948, tony.blackwood@northumbria.ac.uk

Lucy Hatt, Programme Leader, Newcastle Business SchoolDr Lee Pugalis, Reader in Entrepreneurship, Newcastle Business School

Anna Round, Research Fellow, Newcastle Business School

Key words: Entrepreneurship, higher-education, learning, case-study, stages of learning, experiential learning

Abstract

Objectives – The purpose of this paper is to present some findings from a study exploring the introduction of an innovative experiential team based learning model in an entrepreneurial setting.

Prior Work – This model was introduced at Newcastle Business School in September 2013 with a new programme intended to stimulate a flexible, experiential approach to entrepreneurial learning. It differs from extant educational programmes by placing greater emphasis on participants taking full responsibility for their own learning.

Approach – Narrative interviews were conducted with students from the first cohort to study on the programme, at the end of their first year. The paper reports on emergent findings from a larger longitudinal project exploring the enterprising trajectories, and entrepreneurial challenges and experiences of teampreneur participants.

Results – Conceptualisations of learning are complex and nuanced, whereby participants invoked a variety of terms to describe their learning. The learning model appears to have had a positive impact on the progress of the participants through various ‘learning stages’, and several appeared to have gained a degree of ‘intellectual independence’ at an surprisingly early stage in their undergraduate career. All considered that they ‘think differently’ as a result of the programme, although applications of learning were understood and described in different ways. Findings suggest that team based experiential modes of entrepreneurial learning may be better equipped at catering to the needs of learners that are often perceived to rebel (and thus underperform) within the structures of formal learning spaces and traditional teaching methods.

Implications – The team based learning model responds to shifting economic dynamics, including changing labour market conditions, employment prospects and economic skillsets. It is in this sense that governments around the world are seeking to foster more entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial behaviour. The experiential approach examined goes some way towards addressing these needs by equipping learners to rise to these challenges, through developing their capacity for sustained learning in the context of their working environment. It provides some illuminating insights that could, potentially, influence policy decisions and, possibly, fundamentally reconfigure dominant modes of education.

Value – The research is original and, potentially, significant as it reflects on a journey towards an innovative, experiential learning model whose promise is attractive. The practical findings will be especially relevant to other institutions that are currently preparing to adopt this mode of learning, as well as others that may consider adopting this approach in the future.

IntroductionThe Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education recently argued that ‘The call for a greater emphasis on enterprise and entrepreneurship education is compelling. Driven by a need for flexibility and adaptability, the labour market requires graduates with enhanced skills who can think on their feet and be innovative in a global economic environment’ (QAA, 2012). Meeting such aspirations presents challenges in established educational structures and cultures, whose approaches to learning may engender reliance rather than independence and resilience (Anderson et al, 2014) and tendencies such as risk avoidance and rigid relationships between assessment and course content are at odds with conditions which foster entrepreneurship (Garavan and O’Cineide, 1994). Indeed, some perspectives indicate that teaching entrepreneurship (as a means of developing entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial behaviours) within a bureaucratic institution, such as a university, is fundamentally flawed and ultimately prone to fail. In response to such challenges, Newcastle Business School introduced an innovative, 3 year, experiential undergraduate programme, the BA (Hons) Entrepreneurial Business Management (henceforth ‘EBM’) in September, 2013. In many respects, the programme can be viewed as an entrepreneurial endeavour: it seeks to add value by deviating from orthodox approaches and thus involves calculated risks, which are intended to exploit emergent socio-cultural and market opportunities, and flexibility derived from a willingness to adapt to changing circumstances.

EBM is designed for entrants who aspire to run their own business or seek an experiential approach to learning to develop the knowledge and capabilities valued by employers. In this sense, the degree is not too dissimilar from thousands of other schemes offered worldwide. However, a central component of the EBM programme is that participants, working in teams, establish their own business ventures, , identifying commercial opportunities, developing plans to exploit these, and managing the resulting activities. Knowledge developed in the team is applied in practice to enhance learning and develop key business management competences. The programme is based on an approach developed at Finland’s Jyväskylä University of Applied Science’s ‘Team Academy’. Team coaching replaces traditional lectures and classroom teaching, to support a flexible learning approach. Each team is assigned a coach who is responsible for creating an environment to promote effective learning and personal development within the team and to develop the learners’ capacity for self-management. Participants are encouraged to work together to develop solutions to the challenges they encounter and play an active role in identifying and addressing their own learning needs, as these arise from the development of their business.

An experiential approach offers considerable freedom, which learners are encouraged to develop by ‘opening up’ entrepreneurial spaces by way of taking initiative and putting ideas into practice. However, such porous learning spaces places a strong emphasis on participants taking ‘ownership’, whereby they are encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning as well as the cross-fertilisation of learning within teams. It is here whereby EBM differs quite radically with the majority of extant business management courses. During the first year, to support the transition to a team coaching-based facilitative approach and develop the capability of participants, the experiential approach is combined with some more traditional teaching methods. However, emphasis on the latter reduces throughout the year.

This paper reports on initial findings from a study exploring the experiences of the first cohort of programme participants during their first year of study. Findings are derived from a larger longitudinal project exploring the enterprising trajectories, and entrepreneurial challenges and experiences of teampreneur participants. In particular, the focus of the paper is on understandings and articulations of learning as well as distinct ‘stages’ of learning. EBM participants that were interviewed demonstrate a less ‘instrumental’ approach than is frequently found among contemporary young undergraduates.

This research is potentially significant as it provides insights into a journey towards an innovative, experiential learning model. In a narrow sense, but no less important, the analysis will inform the shape, style, focus and ethos of EBM’s on-going development. More broadly, the practical findings will be especially relevant to other institutions which are currently preparing to adopt this mode of learning, as well as others that may consider adopting this approach in the future. The remainder of the paper is as follows. The next section provides a critical review of some of the key conceptual debates relevant to contemporary entrepreneurship education. Although highly partial and selective, it serves to illustrate some key divergences in opinion and the ‘messy-ness’ of entrepreneurship education. A brief outline of the methodological approach utilised follows, before the empirical findings are analysed in section three. The final section concludes with a brief discussion, which seeks to identify the most significant implications of the research.

Entrepreneurship education: concepts and critiquesEntrepreneurship education has expanded considerably over the past two decades, reflecting a widespread policy position which cites entrepreneurship as a positive driver for social, economic and political infrastructure

(Matlay and Carey, 2007). Goals for this expansion include an increase in both the number of entrepreneurial start-ups, and entrepreneurial behaviour by managers in established companies (Anderson et al, 2014, p.8). Desirable outcomes would involve changes to the composition of a national economic landscape, and also to ways of working within the corporations which constitute this.

That entrepreneurship can be developed and honed through education is less disputed. Gartner (1989) suggests that entrepreneurship is a behaviour which occurs in context, and writers such as Drucker summarise the anti-essentialist assumptions behind entrepreneurial education: ‘… it’s not magic, it’s not mysterious, and it has nothing to do with the genes. It’s a discipline. And like a discipline it can be learned’ (Drucker, 1985, quoted by Volkmann et al 2009, p.52). However, integrating the development of entrepreneurship into established educational frameworks presents some considerable challenges. Indeed, although there is convergence in opinion that entrepreneurial skills can be refined there is less agreement in terms of how it can be taught and whether it can be taught at all. Entrepreneurial behaviours and the capacity to engage in entrepreneurial activity are highly conxent-dependent (Stayaert and Katz, 2004, Jayawarna, Rouse and Kitching, 2011, Jones, 2014, Pugalis, Giddings and Anyigor, 2014), diverse (Ekinsmyth, 2011, Henley, 2005), and individual (Dzathor, Mosley and White, 2013, Gartner and Baker, 2010), involving ‘unique’ interactions between the entrepreneur and his/her socio-spatial-economic context (Sarason, Dean and Dillard, 2006, p.287, Pugalis and Liddle, 2014). Associated behaviours include the tendency to seek out opportunities and willingness to act quickly when they arise, effective use of resources, and an interest in building networks rather than hierarchies (Stephenson, 1990, quoted by Gartner and Baker, 2010, pp.2-3).

Entrepreneurship is also associated with the development of novel and – as such – unpredictable approaches and solutions (Soriano and Huarng, 2013). This involves calculated risk, and also proactive willingness to change ‘where and how the competitive game is played’ (Aylonitis and Salavou, 2007, p.571). Risk-taking is often noted as a characteristic of entrepreneurs (Bruyat and Julien, 2000), although some caution that a risk-taking predisposition needs to be tempered by criticality, reflexivity and analysis (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000, p.233). Also important, according to Bandura, is ‘self efficacy’, or a person’s belief … in their capacity to exercise some measure of control over their own functioning and over environmental events’ (Bandura, 2001, p.10). High self-efficacy is cited as a defining characteristic of entrepreneurs (Hechevarria et al, 2012), and a capability to be nurtured in entrepreneurship education (Gibb, 2012, Herrmann, 2008). However, many established structures and cultures in formal education stress definitive answers, ‘getting things right’, avoidance of risk, and rigid relationships between course content and assessment. These run counter to the approaches associated with entrepreneurship (Garavan and O’Cineide, 1994). Anderson et al found that:

... the evidence [is] consistent and fairly repetitive; institutions appear to attract institutionalized approaches to teaching and learning that are restrictive and engender reliance as opposed to resilience and independence ... strict timetabling and rigidity of delivery against easily measured outcomes, or assessment that is announced some considerable time before the work is due. These do not enhance the development of skills related to flexible and innovative thinking.(Anderson et al, 2014, p.29)

Standard evaluation and success measures in management and business education may not transfer easily to entrepreneurship (Volkmann et al, 2009, p.64). However, Matlay and Carey (2007) found ‘pragmatic fluidity’ of approach in their sample of 40 entrepreneurship education programmes in universities, with a recent shift towards practically-oriented approaches and away from traditional ‘business school’ models. Outcomes for graduates from programmes across this broad range were positive; none of Matlay’s interviewees became unemployed during the decade considered and most saw their businesses grow (Matlay, 2008, p.393).

Many characteristics of supposedly successful entrepreneurs are similar to those of students who excel at learning approaches characteristic of higher education. These include the tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity, critical thinking and a disposition to analyse situations, resources and likely outcomes, willingness to put one’s ideas to the test and take risks, application of knowledge to new and partially-understood situations, and questioning established positions. Wang (2008, p.635) found that a strong learning orientation should be in place for entrepreneurial orientation to impact positively on performance. His definition of entrepreneurial orientation incorporates approaches to knowledge consistent with its conception as a dynamic, malleable entity, rather than one which is ‘possessed’ and simply reproduced rather than used. Similarly Morris et al (2011) posit continuous learning from experience as a key characteristic of entrepreneurs, who operate as actors in an ‘unscripted temporal performance’ and continually engage in ‘sense making’ as events unfold around them. They suggest that ‘tolerance of ambiguity, calculated risk taking and achievement motivation’ are features of the entrepreneur (Morris et al, 2011, p.29), deriving from experience and its interpretation. This interplay of self-efficacy and personal motivation with critical and creative thinking is considered crucial to the outcomes both of university study and entrepreneurial ventures.

Discussions of the intellectual development of students in higher education often present the ‘advanced’ stages in similar terms to those of the ‘successful’ entrepreneur, as characterised in the works discussed above. Richardson’s (2013) review of the literature illustrates these similarities. Underpinning both areas of research is the notion of a shift in concepts of what can be done, in the case of entrepreneurs in business and of students with knowledge. Richardson suggests that in education, relevant research is ‘… motivated by the idea that how students themselves think about knowledge, learning and teaching is a primary factor influencing their experience of higher education itself’ (Ibid. p.192). Within this, most writers ‘have converged on accounts that describe students’ epistemological development in terms of a sequence or hierarchy of qualitatively distinct stages or positions’ (Ibid. p.201). Students shift from ‘absolute’ to ‘relativist’ ways of handling knowledge and learning. Initially they believe knowledge can only be retained and reproduced; effective educational experiences bring a realisation that it can also be applied and questioned. At the same time students develop confidence to engage in these activities themselves and eventually to change their view of their own relationship to knowledge. They learn that they can create new knowledge, and tolerate ambiguity and multiplicity of viewpoints. They also approach learning activities more independently, with diminishing need for prompting and reassurance from tutors as they gain ‘intellectual independence’.

Some writers frame these developments in terms of student dispositions at each stage. They suggest that uncertainty and diversity are initially experienced as ‘stressful’, as students look to instructors both for direction in ‘what to do’ and for the ‘right answers’. Later on, students:

... manage their studies more efficiently and effectively; in particular, they are capable of performing complex, analytic tasks with some skill… For them, learning has become more internalized, and they seem more able to use ‘‘freedom to learn’’ … they express less concern about pleasing the teacher and evaluation procedures. (Widick and Simpson, 1978, quoted by Richardson, 2013, p.193)

Others focus on the student’s relationship to learning rather than their activities and personal orientations (e.g. Saljo, 1979). However, there are clear commonalities between these ways of framing learning and change. Students’ understanding of the nature of learning and knowledge shapes their engagement in learning (Crawford et al, 1994, Marton and Saljo, 1997, Prosser and Trigwell, 1999, Meyer, 2000, Meyer and Land, 2003). Trigwell and Ashwin (2006) found a crucial contrast between views of learning as aiming for knowledge gain, primarily for use in assessment, and approaches which stress the development of new ways of thinking, conceptualising and understanding. Put simply, learning development involves a shift from a view of knowing as ‘getting’, to a situation where knowing involves ‘doing’. Pedagogic strategies and the ways in which these frame knowledge and possibilities for its use are highly influential (Ashwin and Trigwell, 2012, Niu, Behar-Horenstein and Garvan, 2013, Halpern, 2001). The interpersonal relationships of learning situations impact strongly both on conceptions of learning and on learning itself (Ashwin and Trigwell, 2006, Danvers, 2013). Longitudinal research into student development suggests that changes in conceptions of knowledge are pivotal to the transformational nature of higher education (Ashwin, 2014, p.126). However, the transitions involved are frequently experienced as problematic or ‘difficult’ (Briggs, Clark and Hall, 2012). Reviewing the literature on first year experiences, Harvey, Drew and Smith (2006, p.3) found:

‘that students need help in adapting to university life and becoming autonomous learners ... integration, through supportive interaction with teachers, greatly enhances adjustment ... rigid prior conceptions about the subject area or approaches to learning can inhibit learning. Research shows that students find conceptual development difficult’.

Experiences of school and college impact strongly on transitions (Crabtree, Roberts and Tyler, 2006, Ozga and Sukhnandan, 1998), especially as these shape student understandings of learning and of themselves as learners (Archer and Leathwood, 2003, Leathwood and O’Connell, 2003, Mann, 2001, Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005, Read, Archer and Leathwood, 2003). One element of successful transition is the development of ‘independent learning’ skills (Bingham and O’Hara, 2007, Pokorny and Pokorny, 2005). The term ‘independent learner’ is used extensively by students and staff (Leese, 2010, p.243), and posited as an ‘ideal’ in key policy texts (e.g. DfEE, 1997, p.6; DFES, 2003, p.16). However, the term itself is rarely interrogated or ‘unpacked’. Leathwood (2006) found that ‘being “independent” meant different things to different students’ (Leathwood, 2006, p.618), including:

a ‘positive’ sense of maturity; this includes doing things without being told to or ‘chased’, taking initiative and not waiting for instructions, and assuming full responsibility for initiating and completing tasks without ‘pushing’, or being ‘checked up on’.

a negative sense of being ‘alone’ and unsupported, associated with not being offered help, guidance or even discussion by teaching staff, or with feeling uncomfortable in seeking these.

a ‘transitional’ approach; students are gradually supported to take an independent approach to the intellectual content of their learning, and to seek guidance when unsure about how to tackle a task or when they encounter conceptually difficult material. This is similar to the internalised ‘freedom to learn’ noted by Widick and Simpson (1978). (Leathwood, 2006, pp.620-629)

Haggis and Pouget (2002, p.328) also note confusion around the issue of ‘independence’. Among their interviewees:

‘All of the students expressing an ongoing determination to ‘work hard’ were completely mystified by what ‘working hard’ might mean in terms of actual activity. They knew, intellectually, that they were going to have to be more ‘independent’ in their learning, but they seemed to find this extremely difficult in practice.’

A crucial motivating factor for these students was the offer of supportive academic relationships from university staff (Haggis and Pouget, 2002, p.329, Trotter and Roberts, 2006). The separation of the maturity and motivation to develop practical habits for higher education learning from ‘independence of mind’ offers insight into the multiple transitions required of first year students. Haggis (2006, p.528) notes that students entering university:

‘… may have little idea of how teaching and learning in the humanities or social sciences is seen by disciplinary specialists; as being about questioning and creating knowledge ... as well as being about exploring what is already known. Previous experiences of lack of success with transmission approaches and knowledge-testing assessment regimes are likely to have created a quite different set of ideas about the purpose of study.’

This context suggests that excellent student support and well-designed teaching methods will lead to learning which both fosters entrepreneurial success and demonstrates the full potential of higher education.

Sample and methodsInterviews were conducted with participants from the first cohort to enrol on the EBM programme. All but one of the interviews took place at the very end of the first year, shortly before or after completion of the final assessed presentation. Participation was voluntary and to some extent constrained by the proximity of the end of term when the majority of students returned to their homes outside the north east; thus some of those who might have wanted to participate could not do so. The interviewees should be regarded as essentially self-selected; interviews with the remainder of the cohort are planned for early in their second year.

Of the 16 students on the programme (9 male and 7 female) six were interviewed, four men and two women. All but one were aged between 18 and 21. Four lived outside the north east of England and had stayed in halls of residence during their first year. Interviews were conducted either in the dedicated EBM programme space (which is a learner-owned space or a form of heterotopia in Foucauldian terms – see, for example, Foucault, 1986) or at the Business School, by a female researcher who was not a member of the programme team. Interviews lasted between 45 and 65 minutes and were loosely structured around a script designed to explore expectations of the programme, experiences during the first year, transition to higher education and university learning, and future plans. A variety of question types were used (following Kvale, 1996) including ‘interpreting’, ‘probing’ and ‘specifying’ questions where necessary. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed prior to analysis.

A narrative analysis, using both thematic and structural categories (Riessman, 2004), was used to examine learner ‘journeys’ in the first year and to gain insights into development and change. This was considered appropriate for a study in which participants reflected on experiences over a period of more than twelve months (from course choice to the end of the first year) and to imagine their futures. The data was also coded manually to identify key themes (following principles proposed by Lofland and Lofland, 1995). Analysis reflected categories introduced in the interview script, and also emergent themes and issues. All responses are anonymised in the account which follows.

Entrepreneurial learning: findings and analysis

Instrumentalism in learningOne surprising finding was the absence of discussion of grades and even of gaining a degree. Research suggests that contemporary ‘young’ undergraduates are often highly ‘instrumental’, prioritising high marks and

the award of a formal qualification above gains in learning (Miller, 2010, Molesworth, Scullion and Nixon, 2009). These trends are associated with passive learning (Naidoo and Jamieson, 2005, Naidoo, Shankar and Veer, 2011), cautious approaches to learning and avoidance of risk (Nixon, Scullion and Molesworth, 2011, Haywood, Jenkins and Molesworth, 2011), and potentially lower engagement in the more advanced stages of intellectual development (Hayes, 2009, Williams, 2011). However, such attitudes were absent in this study. Only one interviewee mentioned grades, stating that these had been a major issue during her prior educational career, when anything other than a high mark would have been ‘absolute disaster’. She felt that a positive change as a result of her experience on EBM was the ability to treat a poor grade (for group work) as ‘a really useful piece of learning’ and an opportunity for reflection. She was in no doubt that she would be awarded a degree, but did not introduce the topic of degree classification.

Three interviewees did not even list gaining a degree among their aims for the rest of the course. That they would graduate was almost taken as read, and the same attitude emerged from those who did talk, briefly and without anxiety, about this outcome. One thought he might learn enough to achieve his long-term aims without even completing the course and gaining the ‘paper’ qualification. The most revealing comment came from an interviewee who described his aims as follows: ‘Hopefully I would like to get a solid team and set up a successful business – oh, and a degree [laughter]’. In this sense, a degree was perceived as a ‘means to an end’. Thus the lack of preoccupation with grades which Richardson (2013) identifies as associated with highly developed stages of higher education learning is evident. This indicates that participants value their learning for its own sake and its relevance to their career goals. The reason for participation in university is to learn and to apply this learning to business and life in general. However, if a grade and ultimately a degree confer formal recognition of learning, these silences raise questions about the ways in which they see their learning as measurable and recognisable.

Reference of the term ‘learning’One challenge in interpreting this data is respondents’ application of the term ‘learning’. For most, its primary reference is to formal contact time, usually in formats associated with passive learning and ‘transmission teaching’ (Biggs and Tang, 2007) and strongly recalling the settings of compulsory education. When asked directly about ‘learning’, they thought first of their involvement in sessions of this sort. For example, one respondent claimed that ‘there was more learning at the beginning of the course than I expected’. Triangulation with other data sources revealed that this interviewee conceived ‘learning’ in a specific manner i.e. that she had encountered more formally timetabled sessions than she had anticipated, not that her learning gain was greater. This potentially raises some significant methodological implications.Alongside this, interviewees also used the term more casually to refer to their intellectual development and learning gains. Only one readily used ‘learning’ primarily (and, indeed, exclusively) in this latter sense, and several avoided it altogether. However, because they had all clearly learned a great deal, to different degrees they referred to learning using other terms or narratives. By far the most common of these was change (see below). As a result of these multiple meanings, the interviews could appear contradictory when interviewees stated that there had not been much ‘learning’ on the course, but later declared firmly that they had learned (or ‘changed’) a lot. These issues over the reference of the term ‘learning’ are possibly more marked in relation to EBM because learning activities and contexts rarely mirror those of school. This finding has some clear practical implications, such as the design of student-feedback questionnaires.

Interviewees clearly considered EBM to be ‘different’ from ‘normal’ higher education courses (a category employed on several occasions). As well as using ‘learning’ to refer to transmission teaching and scheduled activities, one also contrasted ‘university’ with EBM: ‘if it wasn’t for this course I probably wouldn’t be at university [because] I find it very boring’. This interviewee expressed some of the strongest dislike of teaching methods which he felt recalled those of compulsory education, which extended to a resistance to engaging with some classroom-based elements of the course, and unwillingness to apply them to his practical activities: ‘they just sort of gave us a whole load of stuff just like school and none of it was useful because nobody liked the course - nobody liked it - because it was irrelevant to what we were doing’.

Several interviewees referred to traditional contact time as what you ‘get’ at university. One had expected more required attendance and activities than he actually encountered: ‘I expected both more practical and more theoretical work. I just expected more, I think ... there are not very many hours in the week on this course’. Nevertheless, he stressed that he had known in advance of enrolling on EBM would not be like a ‘normal’ course, and that it would involve extensive ‘learning by doing’. In his case, the expectation appears to be less of traditional contact time than of directed tasks (‘more hands on day to day stuff’). Another interviewee had altogether different expectations: ‘I like the idea of uni but what you get from it is not really very much to be honest. You mostly kind of teach yourself … it’s what I expected.’ Later he spoke enthusiastically of the opportunity to ask questions of his tutors; interaction was key to his conception of learning.

One interviewee contrasted ‘experience’ with learning but did not articulate the idea that you could learn from the experience itself. However she clearly believed that she had done so, describing her own experiential learning in detail on several occasions. Examples included deep reflection on her engagement in teamwork, and an exploration of how she had applied approaches from her course to develop a business idea based on a hobby about which she is passionate. She contrasted EBM with alternative and arguably more traditional business courses: ‘I liked the way that they were giving experience all the way through instead of learning for two years, taking a placement and then learning again’. Here ‘experience’ refers to things which the respondent treated as learning opportunities, even as she retained the term ‘learning’ for formal timetabled sessions. A primary implication of these findings is the need to manage learner expectations. This is likely to require an iteration process rather than conducted as a standalone exercise.

Articulating learningOnly one respondent used the term ‘learning’ to refer primarily to cognitive development and the analysis, critique and application of knowledge. Interestingly she made almost no reference to teaching methods but spoke instead of independent learning and of ‘talking to’ tutors. This suggests a high degree of ‘intellectual freedom’. Most respondents did at some point use ‘learning’ to refer to cognitive development (e.g. ‘it's definitely had an impact on my learning’), suggesting that they simply viewed the word as ambiguous. In this small sample it was not possible to discern a regular relationship between respondents’ use of the term ‘learning’ and their apparent ‘stage’ of intellectual development or concept of their relationship to knowledge.

Several interviewees reached for alternative language. One contrasted ‘learning’ (presumably viewed as knowledge transmission) with ‘guidance’: ‘I don’t think I’ve learned, I think it’s more guidance. It’s sort of they [coaches] guide you to find the answers out yourself’. Here ‘learned’ is used as if synonymous with ‘been taught’, suggesting that the respondent associates it with passive receipt of information (or possibly attendance at sessions). His comment indicates that he had made gains in independent learning and self-efficacy, but he still framed ‘knowledge’ as ‘the answers’, suggesting that his development of higher education orientations has some way to go (Ashwin, 2006). This respondent later contrasts ‘coaching’ with teaching (‘It’s more guidance than being taught’). Another used a range of different terms including ‘the progress’ (‘ they [the coaches] had to guide us a little bit, but in a way that would start us off on the progress’), ‘solving problems’ (‘... the coach is there to guide us, to solve problems… they’ve given us direction to sort it out’), and ‘asking questions’. These activities are all associated with developed stages of learning and the interrogation and application of knowledge (Trigwell and Ashwin, 2006).

Learning was also framed as ‘change’. Most interviewees described their ‘journeys’ during the first year in ways which indicated some degree of progression through the various stages of intellectual development identified by Richardson (2013). All thought that they now looked at the world around them and at themselves in different ways as a result of participating in the course. These narratives are discussed in the next section.

‘Stages’ of learningOnly one interviewee indicated that he would have preferred more traditional teaching, particularly for ‘technical’ aspects of business management (‘I’d rather do just ... normal business topics like learn about finance and stuff like that’). He expected more ‘how to’ training and associated formal instruction, suggesting that his priority remains ‘transmitted’ knowledge. His greatest sense of learning gain was in relation to the ‘technical’ aspects of entrepreneurship, including finance, market research and writing a business plan. However he clearly had undertaken self-directed learning in relation to content (‘finding out the answers’), although he did not apply the term as such. Thus he had gained some of the ‘maturity’ (Leathwood, 2006) associated with self-management in higher education but his relationship to knowledge remained relatively passive. Where knowledge was associated with transmission, interviewees often used language reminiscent of compulsory education, e.g. describing topics as something which one ‘does’ rather than investigates and questions.

The application of learning in various ways was discussed. Problem solving was a theme which ran through the interviews, especially in relation to resolving issues within teams. However, interviewees differed in the extent to which the need for problem solving seen as a ‘disruption’ to a process of team establishment which ‘should’ have been smooth, or as an opportunity for learning; the latter approach reflects a more developed approach to learning and entrepreneurship. All had eventually arrived at such a position, but this realisation had clearly come at different rates.

Two respondents (unprompted) addressed the issue of their relationship to knowledge, in particular the legitimacy and usefulness of their engagement in research activities. One had entered the course partly because she ‘loved’ research and actively sought it out. She regarded it as characteristic of both higher education and entrepreneurship, showing a conception of the latter in line with that proposed by Wang (2008). Her learning journey, which had a fairly advanced starting point, involved a dawning awareness of her own

capacity for knowledge creation and engagement in innovation. For example, she discussed an entrepreneurial collaboration with an undergraduate from an entirely different subject area. The other interviewee explained how her attitude to research tasks, in particular to examining different viewpoints, had changed. At school she disliked doing this, preferring an ‘absolute’ position in relation to knowledge (Richardson, 2013) over one of questioning and uncertainty. However, through EBM she had come to see its value in providing a rich source of information on which to base decisions:

‘... just generally being at university, it’s like you can't just really get on with it have your opinions and get through with a little bit of research... you really need to find resources to back everything that you say ... especially with the business plan I turned straight away to journals, books, business articles ... before I'd probably have just searched on the internet see what someone said and now I'm far more thorough with how I carry out my research which is probably for the better.’

For her, the assembly of knowledge through research had shifted from an ‘acquisitive’ task to an interpretative one (Ashwin, 2014).

Learning gains in critical thinking and analysis were described by all interviewees. They were aware that they now ‘thought differently’ about business, and saw business opportunities and ways of ‘doing things better’ to a greater extent than before embarking with the programme. Even those who did not think that they now ‘saw differently’ stated that they were more likely to perceive aspects of their environment from a critical and business-focussed perspective.

Others described how the course had enabled them to apply their new skills and knowledge to the world around them, and to question the ‘status quo’. Examples included developing potential business solutions to practical problems encountered in their social lives, bringing together diverse aspects of learning or apparently unrelated business ideas, and a ‘deepening’ of understanding. Business knowledge, if not being constructed or created, was being used to analyse and interrogate experience, and situations which had been passively accepted had become objects for analysis. In Meyer and Land’s terms, they had reached a stage of development at which they ‘thought like an entrepreneur’ (Meyer and Land, 2003). In some cases this was highly generalised. One described his awareness of thinking in sessions on ‘ideas generation and identifying business opportunities – I really enjoy them ... you’re using your brain’. He recalled an exercise where participants presented business ideas and then shared discussion and critique of one another’s work, citing the discussion and creativity as the elements he found most useful.

An interviewee who stated that he had been ‘learning constantly’ through the first year talked about numerous changes and ways of ‘seeing differently’ which he had come to experience. For him, an important change was in his understanding of the business world:

‘[the course] has made me think that business is a lot harder ... before I think I was a bit naive, so it’s educated me to how hard business can be, I guess ... thinking you can do anything ... whereas in reality when it comes down to it, you know, what can you actually do with the resources around you’.

Awareness of learning was also stark for the respondent who recognised the benefits of evaluation and questioning, even though he did not enjoy these activities. In a highly mature separation of usefulness from enjoyment, he explained that he would continue to use evaluation in his professional life:

‘The course pushes you constantly to evaluate everything, like through pre- and post-Motorolas, ... and it’s something that I don’t really like doing but I can see the benefit of doing it ... evaluating a task that you’ve done, what went well, what went badly, what you’d do differently next time, and it’s something that I would never have done before ... it’s definitely something that I’d use in business, and if I were employing somebody.’

Two interviewees described considerable learning gains in terms of tolerance of ambiguity; this related to their sense of being ‘different people’ in business and personal settings. This was a source of some self-deprecating humour, but both were comfortable with this duality. They had undertaken extensive reflection to come to terms with both its sources and its manifestation.

For all interviewees, learning gains were very strongly associated with the discussion and dialogue encountered in coaching sessions. This both provided guidance and ‘pointers’ towards different ways of thinking, and prompted individual reflection. The ‘pervasiveness’ of discursive and questioning approaches was highly effective in instilling criticality in these respondents. The course thus falls into the category of highly effective ‘immersion’ approaches to developing criticality (Niu, Behar-Horenstein and Garvan, 2013), and the

ongoing dialogue which supports student engagement in these (Trigwell and Ashwin, 2006, Danvers, 2013). In addition, interviewees considered that they befitted from a supportive environment fostered by their coaches who had encouraged them to search out and apply new ways of using and framing knowledge (Ashwin, 2014, Haggis, 2006), and gain a sense of their own legitimacy in doing so (Archer and Leathwood, 2003, Leathwood and O’Connell, 2003). Against this background, it was less surprising that each participant referred to productive relationships with their coaches. This is an area where the avoidance of language which recalls secondary education may be very deliberate, stressing the contrast between these positive university experiences and negative feelings about schoolteachers.

Several interviewees described very poor experiences in secondary education. One had ‘rebelled’ against the wishes of teachers and deliberately delayed higher education entrance; another felt he had been ‘punished’ for asking questions. By contrast the open, respectful and facilitative environment of coaching sessions allowed participants to engage in exploratory and ‘relativistic’ (Richardson, 2013) approaches to knowledge. A positive comment, indicating appreciation both of the coach and of situations where knowledge is highly contested, referred to a tutor who always had ‘fourteen solutions to every problem’. Whilst further research is required, a potentially significant finding may be that team based experiential modes of entrepreneurial learning may be better equipped at catering to the needs of learners that are often perceived to rebel (and thus underperform) within the structures of formal learning spaces and traditional teaching methods.

Stages of learning – maturity and self-motivationInterviewees showed different stages of development in ‘maturity’ and willingness to organise their own learning activities. Several had welcomed the opportunity to do this, citing their enjoyment of course and business activities and their high levels of motivation. One stated that her effective self-organisation gave her confidence in her own ability to become an entrepreneur. The relationship to a desired career meant that engagement in learning tasks was no longer a ‘chore’ as it had been at school. For another, the need to ‘work out your own structures’ was both a welcome challenge and a learning opportunity. He took pride in being self-organised without a rigid routine. All of the interviewees who were comfortable with the extent to which they were expected to organise their own learning perceived that they held accurate expectations of the extent of support and direction which they would receive at university, or had expected far less than they had experienced. Several interviewees had anticipated a much higher level of direction and structure, more similar to compulsory education. Their actual experience of university was not altogether positive:

‘... the structure in terms of the course feels a lot more dysfunctional than a usual college course – like if you are doing something at college or sixth form it’s quite ... structured, whereas this has been dribs and drabs of everything.’

Interestingly all of these respondents had expected EBM to be ‘different’ from a ‘normal’ university course or from compulsory education, and to involve extensive ‘learning by doing’. However, they had expected to encounter strict attendance requirements and more ‘pushing’ to complete tasks. Essentially they appear to have expected the course to be rather like a job. They were surprised that the coaches avoided the power relationships characteristic of schooling, and use language recalling discipline and regulation:

‘The discipline, obviously – there’s nobody to tell you off if you don’t turn up to a lecture. Your attendance is recorded but it’s not... monitored.’ (emphasis added)

One felt that he had become considerably more ‘mature’ during his first year. For him, the biggest challenge had been ‘getting out there and doing things for yourself, getting motivated ... well first year students aren’t known for being motivated and on this course you’ve really gotta motivate yourself ... and to get up and come over here early of a morning as well.’ He acknowledged the need to balance freedom and responsibility: ‘I think it’s made us mature a lot ... it’s made us more responsible because we’ve got the freedom so you can do what you want ... but you still need to work, to do our work and stuff’.

Rather like those interviewed by Haggis and Pouget (2002), these respondents sometimes knew things ‘about’ the course but were less clear how these would be experienced. One stated: ‘I didn’t really come with a preconceived idea of what it was going to be like other than, it’s not going to be ... normal. That’s the way to put it’. He was one of those who repeated the phrase ‘learning by doing’, a notion which he had found attractive in theory. In practice it took him some time to adjust to independent learning, and in particular to undertaking ‘content learning’ in response to his own knowledge gaps.

Participants in EBM are expected to take personal and collective, team responsibility for a significant amount of ‘content learning’, researching technical and practical aspects of business and applying these to tasks. The interviewees had enacted this to various degrees. One was clear that ‘lectures or tutorials or whatever are just the start’, and that it is always the student’s responsibility to undertake further research, accompanied by

thinking and applications. Another was confident that the course had provided him with the knowledge required to start a business. Unlike the interviewee quoted above, who wanted more formal instruction in this area, he described the workshops and lectures as being very useful: ‘... really good, actually, quite concise, and you fit it all in – a lot of good stuff, actually’. He used independent study time to build on taught sessions. Another listed the range of sources which she used to build up her practical knowledge. However other respondents had not grasped the need for this approach. One spoke of his learning about the ‘technical’ aspects of business as follows:

‘... obviously we did ... we touched on things but we never really went into detail – accounting, finance, law ... you know, all the basics that make up a business. We never really went into it – it was more of a gloss over than a getting down to it’.

When asked about when he thought he would learn this ‘content’, he said that he hoped this would happen in the next few years, ‘through lectures and through doing it’. However, towards the end of his interview his comments suggested that he had very recently grasped the need for self-directed learning:

Respondent: I think for me it’s just beginning, I think I’m just beginning to get into the course ... I am beginning to see the future in it and how it’s going to progress. Interviewer: Can you talk about why you didn’t feel like that earlier?Respondent: I think you have to do it to get to that ... to that point. In the beginning I think I was shocked by the lack of work that you had to do and I think I thought it’s going to be like that for the whole three years ... and now I’m at the end of the first year, I can see that things are going to be shaping up differently ... I was just waiting for content, really, waiting ... and waiting.. but then you kind of produce your own content and that’s how it works, and once you’ve got your head around that it’s a lot easier to see the future. (emphasis added)

This ‘lightbulb moment’ was associated directly with the teaching methods used on the course:

‘It’s through the coaching really ... I just listen to what [the coach] says and I think he speaks the truth and he really just says those key points and then I think I’m going to stick with it and just ... because this will be great.’

ConclusionThis paper has sought to provide some new insights from the perspective of learners regarding their initial experiences and preconceptions of embarking on an innovative experiential team based learning model in an entrepreneurial setting. This model was introduced at Newcastle Business School in September 2013 with a new programme intended to stimulate a flexible, experiential approach to entrepreneurial learning. In contrast to many ‘traditional’ business degrees, EBM places greater emphasis on participants taking full responsibility for their own learning. Business knowledge is applied in practice as a means of accelerating learning and there is much emphasis on the development of business management competences such as communication, leadership, creativity, innovation, planning, decision making and team working. In many respects, the programme can be viewed as an entrepreneurial endeavour: it seeks to add value by deviating from orthodox approaches and thus involves calculated risks, which are intended to exploit emergent socio-cultural and market opportunities, and flexibility derived from a willingness to adapt to changing circumstances. Synthesising and analysing the viewpoints of learners from the inaugural intake of EBM participants has generated some important findings that will be crucial to the on-going development of this programme and it is also hoped that some of the key research results point towards some broader implications for the academy and beyond. The final section of this paper is concluded with a brief discussion of the preceding research by extracting some of the most significant findings.

The cohort from whom the EBM participants volunteered was extremely diverse in terms of both engagement with the programme and dispositions to learn. Arguably those who volunteered for interview were those whose learning preferences were most congruent with the innovative approaches of the course. Further research is required with the entire cohort before any clear conclusions maybe drawn about this learning model. Although these initial findings should be treated with some caution due to the limited sample size and its self-selecting tendencies, some consistent themes and sentiments emerged in a powerful manner that warrant consideration.

This study suggests that the learning model of EBM is developing entrepreneurial characteristics in line with the widespread policy goals for entrepreneurship education (Anderson et al, 2014), and learning approaches associated with success in both higher education (Ashwin, 2014) and entrepreneurship (Wang, 2008). Indeed, it may have overcome some of the challenges of integrating the development of entrepreneurial skills within

established educational structures and cultures, although many more hurdles as well as unforeseen challenges will inevitably lie ahead. Thus it may be of particular relevance to those developing entrepreneurial educational initiatives, budding entrepreneurs unsure of their learning journeys and policymakers/politicians seek to accelerate business start-ups and cultivate a broader entrepreneurial culture.

Conceptualisations of learning are complex and nuanced. Interviewees employ various terms to describe, convey and codify their learning. The word ‘learning’ tends to be predominantly associated with schooling and transmission teaching, which may indicate anxiety over transitions to university (Harvey, Drew and Smith, 2006). However, the study also found evidence that participants also recognised that they practised deep learning, and used a variety of language to express this. Given the importance of students’ recognition of their own learning in order to share this with their teams, the language used in both oral and written communication should be carefully considered on experiential programmes of entrepreneurial education. Due to the multitude of ways in which participants relate to the term ‘learn’ it would appear crucial for entrepreneurship educational programmes and other educational courses to discuss, unpack, debate and repack what it means to ‘learn’ in the context of each particular programme. Undertaking such a process may also help to better understand diverse learner expectations. This finding also has some clear practical implications, such as the design of student-feedback questionnaires. Ambiguity and miscommunication in articulation could potentially have a detrimental impact on the process of knowledge creation, and thus on knowledge sharing. This is an area for further research.

Further research would be useful to explore the role of articulating learning in the transition to higher education, and the relationship of this to conceptual development. This is especially important for practical programmes which appeal particularly to those whose experiences of compulsory education were poor. In addition, a fuller consideration of language generates some important methodological considerations not least the potential for misleading research interpretations that could be derived from literal translations of interview transcripts and other verbal/written artefacts. This finding points towards the merits of narrative analysis (as well as other analytical approaches such as discourse analysis).

A key aspect of the EBM programme is the social learning experienced in coaching sessions. All learners considered that they ‘think differently’ as a result of the programme, which was strongly associated with their participation in team coaching sessions and all spoke of the productive relationships with coaches.

The course pedagogy appears to have had a positive impact on learning development and progress through stages of learning towards ‘intellectual independence’ (Richardson, 2013). Interviewees who expressed the highest satisfaction with the programme appeared to view knowledge as a dynamic and malleable entity rather than something to be ‘got’ and reproduced (Wang, 2008), demonstrating a move from ‘absolute’ to ‘relativist’ ways of handling knowledge. This finding may be transferrable to other higher education disciplines. These interviewees held, to varying degrees, all three of the views of ‘independent learning’ identified by Leathwood (2006). Their comments also demonstrate the importance of supportive and open learning relationships in promoting intellectual development (Haggis and Puget, 2002, Trigwell and Ashwin, 2006). Recognising that learning development involves a shift from a view of knowing as ‘getting’, to a situation where knowing involves ‘doing’ appears to be particularly relevant to the discipline of entrepreneurship, which has a strong focus on ‘doing’. This adds weight to the need for experiential learning models to complement other approaches. Whilst only touched upon, the EBM programme can be viewed as a heterotopia (Foucault, 1986) wherein participants have the freedom to ‘open up’ and produce their own entrepreneurial spaces. The role of social, material and mental spaces of entrepreneurial learning would benefit from further analytical attention than hitherto.

Applications of learning were understood and described in different ways, with problem solving in the team a common theme. While all ultimately appreciated the value of this, its value had become evident at distinct stages of the programme for different individuals. Rather surprisingly, none of the interviewees in this study were preoccupied with grades, or demonstrated an ‘instrumental’ approach to learning. This is notable among contemporary ‘young’ undergraduates (Molesworth, Scullion and Nixon, 2011) especially in the first year of study (Ashwin, 2014). In this sense, a degree was perceived by EBM participants as a ‘means to an end’. This may potentially raise some fundamental challenges to present ways of measuring and recognising learning.

Two interviewees described a certain ambiguity of identity, with which they were comfortable. This willingness to take on additional identities may reflect a strong disposition to learn. It further strengthens the characterisation of entrepreneurs as actors in an ‘unscripted temporal performance’ (Morris at al, 2011) and flexible, responsive agents. The impact of this learning model on learner identity and self-identity ambiguity indicates another area for further research.

This paper has reported on a relatively small sample of research that is on-going, which is exploring the enterprising trajectories, and entrepreneurial challenges and experiences of teampreneur participants. Confined to insights from the perspectives of learners from those passing through the first year of the inaugural EBM programme, it is premature to conclude that experiential team based learning helps participants to think like an entrepreneur (cf. Meyer and Land, 2003), however initial findings are positive. Whilst further research is undoubtedly required, a potentially significant finding may be that team based experiential modes of entrepreneurial learning may be better equipped at catering to the needs of learners that are often perceived to rebel (and thus underperform) within the structures of formal learning spaces and traditional teaching methods.

References

Anderson, S., Culkin, N., Penaluna, A. and Smith, K. (2014). An education system fit for an entrepreneur. Fifth Report by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Micro Business. London: The Stationery OfficeArcher, L., and Leathwood, C. (2003). Identities, inequalities and higher education. In Higher education and social class: Issues of exclusion and inclusion, pp. 175-91Ashwin, P. (2014). Knowledge, curriculum and student understanding in higher education. Higher Education 67, pp.123-126.Ashwin, P. and Trigwell, K. (2012). Evoked prior experiences in first year university student learning. Higher Education Research and Development 31 (4), pp. 449-463Avlonitis, G.A. and Salavou, H. E. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation of SMEs, product innovativeness, and performance. Journal of Business Research 60 (5), pp.566-575Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1), pp.1-26Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Third edition. Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.Bingham, R., and O’Hara, M. (2007). Widening participation in early years degrees: ‘I realised I could, and would, do this – and I have!’ Journal of Further and Higher Education 31 (4), pp.311–21Briggs, A., Clark, J. and Hall, I. (2012). Building bridges: understanding student transition to university. Quality in Higher Education 18 (1), pp.3-21Bruyat, C., & Julien, P.-A. (2000). Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 165-180. doi: S0883-9026(99)00043-9Crabtree, H., Roberts, C. and Tyler, C. (2006). Understanding the Problems of Transition into Higher Education. Paper presented at the 2nd conference on ‘Education in a Changing Environment’, University of Salford, July 2006. Available at: http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/35_07.pdfCrawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1994). Conceptions of mathematics and how it is learned: The perspectives of students entering university. Learning and Instruction, 4, pp. 331–345Danvers, E. (2012). Dissertation question time: supporting the dissertation project through peer advice. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 4. Accessed at: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/40951/1/87-691-1-PB.pdfDfEE (1997). The Learning Age: A Renaissance for a New Britain. London: Department for Education and Employment.DFES (2003). The Future of Higher Education (White Paper). London: The Stationery Office Dzathor, A. Y., Mosley, A. L., & White, M. M. (2013). A Longitudinal Examination of The Impact of Founding Owner Operator Characteristics on Nascent Venture Performance: Evidence from the Kauffman Firm Survey. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 3(5), 12Ekinsmyth, C. (2011). Challenging the boundaries of entrepreneurship: The spatialities and practices of UK ‘Mumpreneurs’. Geoforum, 42(1), 104-114. Foucault, M. (1986). Of Other Spaces, Diacritics, 16, pp. 22-27.Garavan, T. and O’Cinneide, B. (1994). Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: a review and evaluation – part 1. Journal of European Industrial Training, 18 (8), pp.3-12.Gartner, William B. (1989). ‘Who is an entrepreneur?’ is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 13, 47-67Gartner, W. B., & Baker, T. (2010). A plausible history and exploration of Stevenson’s definition of entrepreneurship. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 30(4), 15. Gibb, A. (2012). Exploring the synergistic potential in entrepreneurial university development: towards the building of a strategic framework. Annals of Innovation & Entrepreneurship, 2012(3), 21. doi: 10.3402/aie.v3i0.16742Haggis, T. (2006). Pedagogies for diversity: retaining critical challenge amid fears of ‘dumbing down’. Studies in Higher Education 31 (15), pp.521-535

Haggis, T., and Pouget, M. (2002). Trying to be motivated: perspectives on learning from younger students accessing higher education. Teaching in higher education, 7(3), pp. 323-336Halpern, D. F. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. The Journal of General Education, 50(4), pp.270–286Harvey, L., Drew, S. and Smith, M. (2006). The first year experience: a review of literature for the Higher Education Academy. York: Higher Education Academy.Hayes, D. (2009). Academic freedom and the diminished subject. British Journal of Educational Studies 57 (2), pp. 127-145Haywood, H., Jenkins, R. and Molesworth, M. (2011). A degree will make all your dreams come true: higher education as the management of consumer desires. In Molesworth, M., Scullion, R. and Nixon, E. (eds). The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer. London: RoutledgeHechavarria, D. M., Renko, M., & Matthews, C. H. (2012). The nascent entrepreneurship hub: goals, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and start-up outcomes. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 685-701. doi: 10.1007/s11187-011-9355-2Henley, A. (2005). From entrepreneurial aspiration to business start-up: Evidence from British longitudinal data: CiteseerHerrmann, K. (2008). Developing entrepreneurial graduates: Putting entrepreneurship at the centre of higher education. London: NESTAJayawarna, D., Rouse, J., & Kitching, J. (2011). Entrepreneur motivations and life course. International Small Business Journal, 31(1), 23. doi: 10.1177/0266242611401444Jones, S. (2014). Gendered discourses of entrepreneurship in UK higher education: The fictive entrepreneur and the fictive student. International Small Business Journal, 32(3), 21. doi: DOI: 10.1177/0266242612453933Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, California: SageLeathwood, C. (2006). Gender, equity and the discourse of the independent learnerin higher education. Higher Education 52 (4), pp.611-633Leathwood, C., and O'Connell, P. (2003). ‘It's a struggle’: The construction of the ‘new student’in higher education. J. Education Policy, 18(6), pp.597-615Leese, M. (2010) Bridging the gap: supporting student transitions into higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education 34 (2), pp.239-251. Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. (1995). Analysing Social Settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Third edition. Belmont, California: WadsworthMann, S. (2001). Alternative perspectives on the student experience: alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), pp.7-19Marton, F., & Sa¨ljo¨ , R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D.J. Hounsell, and N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning, 2nd edition, pp. 39–58. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic PressMatlay, H. (2008). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 15 (2), pp.382-396. Matlay, H. and Carey, C. (2007). Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a longitudinal perspective. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14 (2), pp. 252-63Meyer, J. (2000). Variation in contrasting forms of ‘memorising’ and associated observables. British Journal of Educational Psychology 70, pp.163-170Meyer, J., and Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. UK: University of EdinburghMiller, B. (2010). Skills for sale: what is being commodified in higher education?. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34(2), 199-206.Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., & Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: The marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 277-287.Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., Schindehutte, M., & Spivack, A. J. (2012). Framing the entrepreneurial experience. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1), 11-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00471.xNaidoo, R. and Jamieson, I. (2005). Empowering participants or corroding learning? Towards a research agenda on the impact of student consumerism in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 20 (3), pp. 267-281Naidoo, R., Shankar, A. and Veer, E. (2011). The consumerist turn in higher education: Policy aspirations and outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management, 27 (11-12), pp.1142-1162Nixon, E.., Scullion, R. and Molesworth, M. (2011). How choice in higher education can create conservative learners. In Molesworth, M., Scullion, R. and Nixon, E. (eds). The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer. London: RoutledgeNiu, L., Behar-Horenstein, L. and Garvan, C. (2013). Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 9, pp.114-128. Ozga, J., and Sukhnandan, L. (1998). Undergraduate non‐completion: developing an explanatory model. Higher Education Quarterly, 52(3), pp.316-333.

Pascarella, E. and Terenzini, P. (2005). How College Affects Students (Vol 2): A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Pokorny, M., and Pokorny, H. (2005). Widening participation in higher education: Student quantitative skills and independent learning as impediments to progression. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 36 (5), pp.445–67.Prosser, M., and Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University PressThe Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2012) Enterprise and entrepreneurship education: Guidance for UK higher education providers. Pugalis, L., Giddings, B. & Anyigor, K. (2014). 'Nigerian informal settlements: the prevalence of and barriers to entrepreneurial synergies in slum communities', in: Pugalis, L. & Liddle, J., eds. Enterprising Places: Leadership and Governance Networks, Bingley, Emerald/ISBE.Pugalis, L. & Liddle, J., eds. (2014). Enterprising Places: Leadership and Governance Networks, Bingley, Emerald/ISBE.Read, B., Archer, L., and Leathwood, C. (2003). Challenging cultures? Student conceptions of 'belonging' and 'isolation' at a post-1992 university. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), pp.261-277Richardson, J. (2013). Epistemological development in higher education. Educational Research Review 9, pp.191-206. Riessman, C. (2004). Narrative analysis. In Lewis-Beck, M., Bryman, A. and Liao, T. (eds., The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: SageSäljö, R. (1979b). Learning in the learner’s perspective: I. Some common-sense assumptions. Göteborg, Sweden: University of Göteborg, Institute of Education. Report No. 76Sarason, Y., Dean, T., & Dillard, J. (2005). Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and opportunity: A structuration view. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(3), 286-305. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.007Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of management review, 25(1), 11Soriano, D. R., & Huarng, K.-H. (2013). Innovation and entrepreneurship in knowledge industries. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1964-1969. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.019Steyaert, C., & Katz, J. (2004). Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: geographical, discursive and social dimensions. Entrepreneurship & regional development, 16(3), 179-196Trigwell, K., and Ashwin, P. (2006). An exploratory study of evoked conceptions of learning and learning environments. Higher Education, 51, pp.243–258Trotter E. and Roberts C.A. (2006). Enhancing the Early Student Experience, Higher Education Research and Development 25(4), pp.371-86Wang, C. L. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4), 21. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00246.x Volkmann, C., Wilson, K., Mariotti, S., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, S. and Sepulveda, A. (2009). Educating the Next Wave of Entrepreneurs: Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st Century. A Report of the Global Education Initiative. World Economic Forum, SwitzerlandWidick, C., and Simpson, D. (1978). Developmental concepts in college instruction. In C. A. Parker (Ed.), Encouraging development in college students (pp. 27–59). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota PressWilliams, J. (2011). Constructing consumption: what media representations reveal about today’s students. In Molesworth, M., Scullion, R. and Nixon, E. (eds). The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer. London: Routledge